Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials

Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort.

A patient-level pooled analysis assessing the impact of the SYNTAX (synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery) score on 1-year clinical outcomes in 6,508 patients enrolled in contemporary coronary stent trials

This study sought to assess the impact of the SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score (SXscore) on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials: a consensus report from the Valve Academic Research Consortium

To propose standardized consensus definitions for important clinical endpoints in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), investigations in an effort to improve the quality of clinical research and to enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. To make these consensus definitions accessible to all stakeholders in TAVI clinical research through a peer reviewed publication, on behalf of the public health.

Standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials: a consensus report from the valve academic research consortium

To propose standardized consensus definitions for important clinical endpoints in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), investigations in an effort to improve the quality of clinical research and to enable meaningful comparisons between clinical trials. To make these consensus definitions accessible to all stakeholders in TAVI clinical research through a peer reviewed publication, on behalf of the public health.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Reporting of noninferiority trials was incomplete in trial registries

Objective To examine the registration of noninferiority trials, with a focus on the reporting of study design and noninferiority margins. Study Design and Setting Cross-sectional study of registry records of noninferiority trials published from 2005 to 2009 and records of noninferiority trials in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) or ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries. The main outcome was the proportion of records that reported the noninferiority design and margin. Results We analyzed 87 registry records of published noninferiority trials and 149 registry records describing noninferiority trials. Thirty-five (40%) of 87 records from published trials described the trial as a noninferiority trial; only two (2%) reported the noninferiority margin. Reporting of the noninferiority design was more frequent in the ISRCTN registry (13 of 18 records, 72%) compared with ClinicalTrials.gov (22 of 69 records, 32%; P = 0.002). Among the 149 records identified in the registries, 13 (9%) reported the noninferiority margin. Only one of the industry-sponsored trial compared with 11 of the publicly funded trials reported the margin (P = 0.001). Conclusion Most registry records of noninferiority trials do not mention the noninferiority design and do not include the noninferiority margin. The registration of noninferiority trials is unsatisfactory and must be improved.

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of stent thrombosis at 4 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS randomized trials

The efficacy of durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DES) is delivered at the expense of delayed healing of the stented vessel. Biodegradable polymer DES aim to avoid this shortcoming and may potentially improve long-term clinical outcomes, with benefit expected to accrue over time. We sought to compare long-term outcomes in patients treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).

Pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (CAPACITY): two randomised trials

Background Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is a progressive and fatal lung disease with inevitable loss of lung function. The CAPACITY programme (studies 004 and 006) was designed to confirm the results of a phase 2 study that suggested that pirfenidone, a novel antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory drug, reduces deterioration in lung function in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Methods In two concurrent trials (004 and 006), patients (aged 40–80 years) with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis were randomly assigned to oral pirfenidone or placebo for a minimum of 72 weeks in 110 centres in Australia, Europe, and North America. In study 004, patients were assigned in a 2:1:2 ratio to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day, pirfenidone 1197 mg/day, or placebo; in study 006, patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day or placebo. The randomisation code (permuted block design) was computer generated and stratified by region. All study personnel were masked to treatment group assignment until after final database lock. Treatments were administered orally, 801 mg or 399 mg three times a day. The primary endpoint was change in percentage predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) at week 72. Analysis was by intention to treat. The studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00287729 and NCT00287716. Findings In study 004, 174 of 435 patients were assigned to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day, 87 to pirfenidone 1197 mg/day, and 174 to placebo. In study 006, 171 of 344 patients were assigned to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day, and 173 to placebo. All patients in both studies were analysed. In study 004, pirfenidone reduced decline in FVC (p=0·001). Mean FVC change at week 72 was −8·0% (SD 16·5) in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day group and −12·4% (18·5) in the placebo group (difference 4·4%, 95% CI 0·7 to 9·1); 35 (20%) of 174 versus 60 (35%) of 174 patients, respectively, had a decline of at least 10%. A significant treatment effect was noted at all timepoints from week 24 and in an analysis over all study timepoints (p=0·0007). Mean change in percentage FVC in the pirfenidone 1197 mg/day group was intermediate to that in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day and placebo groups. In study 006, the difference between groups in FVC change at week 72 was not significant (p=0·501). Mean change in FVC at week 72 was −9·0% (SD 19·6) in the pirfenidone group and −9·6% (19·1) in the placebo group, and the difference between groups in predicted FVC change at week 72 was not significant (0·6%, −3·5 to 4·7); however, a consistent pirfenidone effect was apparent until week 48 (p=0·005) and in an analysis of all study timepoints (p=0·007). Patients in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day group had higher incidences of nausea (125 [36%] of 345 vs 60 [17%] of 347), dyspepsia (66 [19%] vs 26 [7%]), vomiting (47 [14%] vs 15 [4%]), anorexia (37 [11%] vs 13 [4%]), photosensitivity (42 [12%] vs 6 [2%]), rash (111 [32%] vs 40 [12%]), and dizziness (63 [18%] vs 35 [10%]) than did those in the placebo group. Fewer overall deaths (19 [6%] vs 29 [8%]) and fewer deaths related to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (12 [3%] vs 25 [7%]) occurred in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day groups than in the placebo groups. Interpretation The data show pirfenidone has a favourable benefit risk profile and represents an appropriate treatment option for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Reporting of consistency of blood pressure control in randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive drugs: a systematic review of 1372 trial reports

Hypertension is a powerful treatable risk factor for stroke. Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antihypertensive drugs rightly concentrate on clinical outcomes, but control of blood pressure (BP) during follow-up is also important, particularly given that inconsistent control is associated with a high risk of stroke and that antihypertensive drug classes differ in this regard.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011

Optimal reporting of randomized trials and abstracts enhances transparency and facilitates assessment and identification of trials. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in orthodontic journals.

Mislabeling controlled clinical trials (CCTs) as "randomized clinical trials (RCTs)" in dental specialty journals

This study aimed to investigate whether studies published in dental journals with the highest impact factor, representing the 5 major dental specialties and titled as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are truly RCTs. A second objective was to explore the association of journal type and other publication characteristics on correct classification.